Gina Kavaliūnaitė. “Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas”. I tomas

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVIII (2008), 153 - 159 Recenzijos Reviews KAVALIŪNAITĖ, GINA, ED. Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas. I tomas. Lietuviško vertimo ir olandiško originalo faksimilės. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008, cxliiij + 761 pp. ISBN 978-9955-704-38-6 This impressive large-format, beautifully illustrated and printed volume contains facsimile copies of: (1) Chylinski's An Account OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE INTO THE LITHVANIAN TONGVE [...], Oxford: Printed by Hen: Hall Printer to the University, 1659 (pp. 3-14); (2) Chylinski's RATIO Inftitutae Tranflationis BIBLIO- RUM IN LINGUAM LITHVANICAM [...], [Oxford, ~ 1660] (pp. 15-23); (3) The Lon- don copy of Chylinski’s Old Testament (pp. 25-208); (4) The text parts of Chylinski’s Old Testament taken from the Berlin copy (pp. 209-390); (5) The fragments from the Vilnius copy supplementing the London and Berlin copies (pp. 391-394); (6) The Old Testament from the Statenbijbel (pp. 395-761). These facsimile copies are preceded by a Preface in Lithuanian (pp. vij-ix) and English (pp. xi-xiij), a table of contents (pp. x-xvj) and a painstakingly careful and thorough five-chapter Introduction in Lithuanian (pp. xvij-Ixxj) with an English ver- sion (pp. Ixxij—cxxvij). Chapter I, “Samuel Boguslaus Chylinski and his Lithuanian Bible translation” (pp. xix-xl, Ixxv-xciiij), relates how the forthcoming appearance of the translation was announced by the publication of the English and Latin pamphlets of which the facsimiles are provided. The Bible translation was supported by many prominent 17th century Protestant propagandists, including even the famous Oxford chemist, Robert Boyle, and was even presented to King Charles II of England, who decreed that a collection should be made for the printing of the Bible, which was begun in 1660, but then suddenly suspended two years later. The unbound sheets of the printed text, which had reached Psalm 40, were given to the minister of the Dutch congregation, Calandrini, but the further fate of these pages is unknown. At the end of the 19th century copies of the printed part of the text were discovered in London, Berlin and St. Petersburg respectively, but today only the whereabouts of 153 Recenzijos the London copy in the British library is known. Fortunately a photographic repro- duction of the Berlin copy (which was almost 200 pages longer than the London copy) was discovered in the Vilnius University library and could be published in the present volume. This chapter also notes the fact that the manuscript translation of Chylinski's New Testament, purchased by the British Museum in 1933 from an antiquarian, was transcribed and published by the Polish scholars Czestaw Kudzi- nowski and Jan Otrebski in 1958 and in 1964 Prof. Kudzinowski published an index to this volume. As an aside I might mention that in 1986 during a brief visit to Poznan I had the pleasure of being invited to dinner along with Prof. M. Hasiuk to Prof. Kudzi- nowski’s apartment (where, by the way, our common language of communication was Lithuanian). I mentioned to Prof. Kudzinowski that I frequently made use of his valuable index and Chylinski’s New Testament for my study of Lithuanian. At that time Prof. Kudzinowski asked me if I had found any mistakes in his index and I re- plied that I had not found any. Of course, there may be mistakes that I hadn’t found, but I would still highly recommend Prof. Kudzinowski’s index to anybody studying the history of the Lithuanian language. And now, according to Kavaliūnaitė (pp. xx, Ixxvj) we can look forward to a similar carefully prepared and exhaustive word and form index for Chylinski’s newly published Old Testament. Such will, indeed, be a great service to the field. Chapter II, “A survey of research concerning Chylinski’s Bible” (pp. xl-xlviij, xciiij—ciij), notes that at first the existence of the translation was known only from bibliographies, although at least fifteen polyglots (pamphlets containing the Lord’s Prayer in various languages) cite the Chylinski Bible translation as their source (xlj, xciij). Beginning as early as the 18th century and before the actual discovery of any copies of Chylinski’s Bible translation appeals had been made for any information concerning the whereabouts of such copies in several European publications. This chapter also discusses the original skepticism concerning Chylinski’s authorship, the overcoming of the doubts, the publication of parts of the text, scientific evaluations by various scholars right up to the present day. Chapter III 1s entitled “The known copies of the printed parts of Chylinski’s Bi- ble, excerpts from them published in other printed sources” (pp. xlviij-lij, ciij—cvj). The London copy, only 176 pages long and stopping at Joshua 15, was discovered in 1893 by the British Museum librarian John T. Naaké. It is the only copy of the printed text known today and is reproduced for the first time in the present volume. The Berlin copy, originally held by the Royal Library in Berlin, but now apparently 154 Recenzijos lost, is 384 pages long and stops at the book of Job. A photographic reproduction of the Berlin copy had been made for Prof. Jan Otrebski and upon his death his widow, Helena Otrebska-Samaniūtė, donated her deceased husband's archives to the library of the University of Vilnius in 1989. Among Prof. Otrebski’s archives this photographic reproduction was discovered. The volume under review here contains reproductions of the Berlin copy from pp. 177-384, thereby supplementing the re- productions of the London copy. The Vilnius copy is 416 pages long, stops at Psalm 50 and is therefore the longest of the three copies. This was probably the copy which Chylinski himself had brought with him to show to the synod. It is assumed that this is the copy mentioned by Jacob Quandt in the preface to his own Lithuanian Bible (1735) and a facsimile from Quandt (Job 19, 25-27) is given on p. 393. The Vilnius copy was donated in 1805 to the University of Vilnius library by Jerzy Gruzewski and in 1842 it was acquired by the St. Petersburg Roman Catholic Spiritual Academy. In 1887 Prof. Arist Kunik announced the discovery of the Vilnius copy of Chylinski’s Bible translation. In an 1887 publication E. Wolter reproduced texts from Esther, Ruth and Psalm 40, the later of which is published here in facsimile form (p. 394). The whereabouts of the Vilnius copy has been unknown since 1918. Chapter IV, “The source of Chylinski’s translation” (pp. lij-Ixiiij, cvj—cxx) con- tains a stimulating and convincing demonstration of the Dutch source of Chylinski's work. The Dutch Statenvertaling, based on the original languages of the Bible, viz. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, was the principal source for Chylinski’s translation. This translation was authorized by the Estates General of the Netherlands in 1637 and an official revision was published in 1657. Kavaliūnaitė notes the many struc- tural similarities between the Dutch and Lithuanian texts: “The book title in capitals, is followed by a brief description of the contents in small type, called uzfirakinimas tos knigos in Lithuanian (Dutch inhoudt defles Boecks), the text is printed in two col- umns, the references to parallel texts in italics are in the margin. The descriptions of contents preceding every Bible book, of one page length on average, show an almost word-to-word correspondence to the Dutch originals” (pp. iiij, cvij—cviij). In addition the existence of explicits following each book chapter in both the Lithuanian and Dutch translations is a feature not found in other Bible translations, e.g., Gatas apirayfSkimo Jona ir cieto teypag Naujo Testamenta can be compared to the Dutch Eynde der Openbaringe JOANNIS, ende oock des geheelen NIEUWEN TESTA- MENTS ‘The end of the Revelation of John as well as of the whole New Testament’ (p. liij, cviij). Wherever the Dutch version shows a difference of assignment of verses 155 Recenzijos from the Vulgate, Chylinski's Bible follows the Dutch rather than the Vulgate (p. liiij, cviij). The author writes (p. lvij): “Kai kurie hebrajų kalbos ypatumai reiškiasi sistem- ingai, kartodamiesi visame tekste. Hebrajų kalboje prielinksnis ben ‘tarp’ kartoja- mas prieš kiekvieną iš sujungiamų daiktavardžių ar daiktavardį atstojančių įvardžių. Tokio kartojimo tiksliai neperteikia nei Septuaginta, nei Vulgata, plg.: Pr 16,5 kpivai 0 Os0c ava pščoov £pol Kai ood “tegul teisia Dievas tarp manęs ir tavęs"; iudicet Domi- nus inter me et te “teteisia Dievas tarp manęs ir tavęs"; tačiau Chylinskis išvertė WI- ESZPATS te fudyja terp manęs, ir terp tawęs, nes ir olandų vertėjai raše de HEERE richte tuffchen my/ ende tuffchen u (yispot YHWH béni ūbėnščka). The English counterpart of this section which expresses the same thought, but in a slightly different fashion reads (p. cxij): “The Hebrew influence pervading Chylinski’s language through the mediation of the Dutch Statenvertaling extends to the whole text of his Old Testa- ment. As an example we could cite the Hebrew practice of repeating the preposition terp ‘between’...” The English counterpart then reproduces the Lithuanian, Dutch and Hebrew versions given above, but fails to reproduce the Septuagint and Vulgate. I think it interesting to note that Father Rubšys avoids a preposition completely in his translation (p. 25): Tebūna VIEŠPATS tavo ir mano teisėjas ‘may the Lord be your judge and mine’, Brockelman (1913: 411) gives a similar example of the Semitic doubling of this preposition (Genesis 30, 36): bėno ūbėn Ya*qob ‘zwischen sich und 1." for which the Vulgate has (Et posuit spatium itineris trium dierum) inter se et generum, whereas the Septuagint gives kai dnéotnoev 600vV TpLOV NUEPGOV AVA HEGOV QUTOV Kal Ava uécov lakwf. Chylinski has (p. 56): (Ir padare kiala, tryju dienu) terp sawes, ir terp Jokuba. The Dutch version (p. 433) repeats the preposition tuffchen ‘between’ as does the Septuagint where we encounter the repetition of ava uéoov, although the Vulgate has only the single inter similar to the King James version which has only one preposi- tion: ‘(And he set three days’ journey) betwixt himself and Jacob’. One might note also that Father Rubšys only has one preposition in his modern translation (p.46): (Tuomet jis nustatė, kad) tarp jo ir Jokūbo (būtų trijų dienų kelionės atstumas). The original version of the Statenvertaling was published in 1637, a Register of Corrections of Printing Errors and Mistakes to be Found in the First Edition of the Newly Translated Bible was published in 1655 and accordingly the revised edition of the Statenvertaling was published in 1657. In the revised edition 134 corrections (p. lix, cxiij) were made in the references to parallel portions of the text. An attempt was made to find an original Dutch edition which corresponded exactly with the 156 Recenzijos references in Chylinski's translation in which 80% of these references correspond with the 1637 edition rather than with those of the Register of Corrections... and the revised edition of 1657. In the hope of finding the edition of the Statenbijbel in which the corrections of the parallel texts would correspond exactly with those in the Lithuanian translation Kavaliūnaitė checked an impressive total of 47 different editions in the possession of various Dutch libraries. In spite of this seemingly monu- mental effort she was unable to find an exact match, so the decision was made to publish along with the Chylinski translation a pre-1657 Statenbijbel edition without the commentaries. Kavaliūnaitė discusses in a thorough manner the possibility of a Polish source for Chylinski’s translation (pp. Ix-Ixiiij, cxiij—cxx). After considering the possible Polish Bibles she concludes that if Chylinski had a Polish text with him it was probably the Gdansk Bible. Although he probably did not translate from the Polish text, he may well have used it to correct his text. He adjusted his participial usage in conformity with the Polish usage, e.g., changing gerunds to special adverbial active participles (pusdalyviai also known in English as ‘semi-declinable participles’). Thus we encoun- ter from Matthew 9.27: dujen aktuju > du aktu ejo pafkui ghi faukiant > Raukdami ir katbant > katbedami (cf. Statenbijbel: zijn hem twee blinde gevolgt/ roepende end Jeggende; Gdansk Bible: fli zd nim dwd slepi wotając y mowigc. 1 have noted that Chylinski’s Lord’s Prayer begins Tewe mufu ‘Father our’ (Kudzinowski and Otrebski 1958: 14) with the noun first and the possessive pronoun in second position, using the same word order as in the 1632 Gdansk Bible (Ojczie ndfs) found in the holdings of the Pennsylvania State University library. The on-line Statenbijbel has the word order Onze Vader ‘Our Father’ as does the 1641 Leyden printing. Whether to say ‘Our Father’ or ‘Father our’ has long been the subject of debate among Protestant theologians and when Luther wrote Unser Vater in his 1522 translation of the New Testament he was roundly criticized (Schmalstieg 2001: 151). Possibly Chylinski felt it necessary to continue an established tradition, rather than to arouse the ire of his contemporaries by following the Dutch example (see also Schmalstieg 1998, pas- sim). In fact, however, I am quite at a loss to explain why Chylinski did not follow the Dutch example here. Chapter V, entitled “The texts published in the present edition” (pp. Ixiiij-1xxj, CXXj-cxxvij), contains a detailed description of the content and form of the originals, their place of origin and various other pertinent information. Following this are a carefully prepared and thorough bibliography (pp. cxxix- cxxxvij), an index of names (pp. cxxxviiij-cxlij) and a list of illustrations (cxliij- 157 Recenzijos cxliiij). These illustrations add greatly to the beauty of the volume. The first one is a drawing of the Kėdainiai Evangelical Reformed Church by Napoleon Orda (1875). There are engravings of the city of Franeker, the Academy where Chylinski studied, the library of the Academy, a general view and map of the city of Franeker, various views of Oxford and a picture of Charles II of England. Included also at appropri- ate intervals are eleven imaginative etchings of some Biblical scenes by Šarūnas Leonavičius. The facsimiles themselves occupy pp. 1-761. I have a few minor trivial comments to add here. In the Lithuanian original of the Preface (pp. vij—-ix) the quotations in Latin are translated into Lithuanian, but in the English version the same Latin quotations remain without an English translation. For the most part the Lithuanian original uses the term Statenbijbel ‘Estates Bible’, e.g., p. liij, whereas the English version uses the term Statenvertaling ‘Estates transla- tion’,” e.g., pp. cvij—cviij. The terms seem to be synonymous and there seems to be no possibility of misunderstanding, but the reason for the choice of the different terms is not clear. The Latin infinitive dicere ‘to say’ (p. Ixiiij) should be replaced by the participle dicens ‘saying’. The name of the city Koeningsberg (p. Ixxxvij) for the more usual Koenigsberg is new to me also, but judging by the etymology, cf. Old English cyning, Dutch koming ‘king’, etc. I would find such a form to be quite possible, though unfamiliar. I have noticed the following misprints: p. xxxij ‘whith’ > ‘which’; p. Ixxxiiij ‘tranlation’ > ‘translation’; p. ciij ‘titles pages’ > ‘title pages’; p. cxv ‘sig- inificance’ > ‘significance’; p. cxx ‘grammatical form’ > ‘grammatical forms’. On p. xxxij the quotation has ‘one Chilinski (!)’ but in the English translation on p. Ixxxvij the same quotation has ‘one Chylinski’.’ In conclusion one can only praise the author and the care with which she has produced this valuable facsimile edition of Chylinski’s Old Testament, certain rel- evant attendant contemporary documents and her insightful and interesting com- mentaries. I only hope that she will continue this work and will eventually produce the promised transcription and an index for the Old Testament that are as careful and useful as those of Kudzinowski and Otrebski (1958) and Kudzinowski (1964) are for the New Testament. REFERENCES BROCKELMAN, C. 1913: Grundrif$ der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin: von Reuther & Reichard. (Here cited after the 1982 reprint, Hildesheim, Ziirich and New York: Georg Olms.) 158 Recenzijos Goansk Bible = Biblia Swieta... Gdansk: W Drukarniey Andrzeja Hunefelda, 1632. Kupzinowskl, Cz. 1964: Biblia litewska Chyliriskiego. Nowy Testament 3. Indeks. Poznan: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kupzinowskl, Cz., OTregsskl, J. 1958: Biblia litewska Chyliniskiego. Nowy Testament 2. Tekst. Poznan: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Rusšys, A. (translator) 1998: Senasis ir Naujasis Testamentas. Šventasis raštas. Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulis Press. ScHMALsTIEG, W. R. 1998: Old Prussian *nūson tūwa: a correction with theological implications. Baltistica 33 (1), 41-42. ScHMALSTIEG, W. R. 2001: More theological implications. Linguistica Baltica 9, 149-153. STATENVERTALING = Biblia, dat is, De gantsche H. Schrifture... Leyden: P.A. van Ravesteyn, 1641. William R. Schmalstieg 814 Cornwall Road State College, Pa. 16803, USA 159